< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Feb-16-06|| ||dakgootje: How stupid, how terrible stupid that i didnt see it! Did think about the same way as <dzechiel> wrote down, though he realised the immediate Rxd5 doesnt work because of cxd5 and i missed it...|
|Feb-16-06|| ||independentthinker: I didn't see this either, but it' another nice new motif. "get them where you want them" as phrased by another Kibitser, then a simple fork.|
|Feb-16-06|| ||Castle In The Sky: I had 57...xd5 and then 58...f3+, how does this fail?|
|Feb-16-06|| ||YouRang: I got it pretty readily once I realized that the point of the tactic is just to trade off all the pieces so that white would have nothing to stop black from promoting.|
The other key point is to notice the potential for the bishop fork on b2 and f6.
With the above ideas in mind, the 57...Rg3+ move and subsequent trade-offs come into focus. :)
|Feb-16-06|| ||YouRang: <Castle In The Sky: I had 57...xd5 and then 58...f3+, how does this fail?> After 57...Rxd5 58. cxd5 Rf3+ 59. Kc4 (moving to the square vacated by the pawn), then what?|
|Feb-16-06|| ||Castle In The Sky: <YouRang> Very true. Thanks for the analysis.|
|Feb-16-06|| ||kevin86: A brilliant finish!! Worthy of a problem!! White is forced to exchange one set of rooks-then black steals a piece.|
|Feb-16-06|| ||dakgootje: Strange coincedence: Yesterday we talked about the mating with vs , so today i play a game versus littlechesspartner, last time was a long time ago. And pity enough it stays better but be go through the opening and middle-game and it seems like its going to be a vs fight...It had its king, bishop, knight and pawn left, and i only a bishop, so i wanted to see how good it was at mating with only a king bishop and knight....And then just before the move comes where i have to sac by bishop for its pawn...i blunder and let him fork my bishop and king, so i resigned -.-|
|Feb-16-06|| ||dakgootje: Is white the same guy as http://mysite.verizon.net/jyu1/Tayl... ?|
|Feb-16-06|| ||Resignation Trap: <dakgootje> No sir! Sir Theodore Henry Tylor was from an earlier era: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodo... .|
|Feb-16-06|| ||WannaBe: <dakgootje> I very highly doubt it. =)|
|Feb-16-06|| ||WannaBe: IM T. Taylor would be very displeased to see that you think he would be that old!! LOL.|
|Feb-16-06|| ||notyetagm: <shirova: <Richerby> Sultan Khan was not a GM because there's no GM award at his time.>|
Anyone who could beat Capablanca in a slow game is a GM PERIOD.
|Feb-16-06|| ||dzechiel: <shirova> While it's true that FIDE may not have been awarding the Grandmaster title, that didn't mean there were no grandmasters.|
The first five "Grandmasters" were awarded the title by Czar Nicholas II of Russia at St Petersburg in 1914. They were Emanual Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Tarrasch and Marshall.
|Feb-16-06|| ||blingice: I saw everything through the trade, but didn't see the sac finish. I didn't think it was that difficult of a puzzle. Does anyone else agree?|
Whatever, I'm bad at endgame.
|Feb-16-06|| ||champmorphy: I really liked that brilliant finish|
|Feb-16-06|| ||McCool: I read that one like a book.
|Feb-16-06|| ||Stonewaller2: while there were Grandmasters pre-FIDE it would be interesting to know whether there were any particular qualifications for the title then, what they were and how they were passed out|
|Feb-16-06|| ||GoldenKnight: I saw this one all the way to the final position within a couple of minutes without moving pieces (which I never do because I like simulating tournament conditions and don't normally have a board handy anyway). So, I'm sure SK did too.|
|Feb-16-06|| ||Moondoll: nice puzzle. I saw it... sort of. i was looking at 58...Rxd5 59...Bd4 forking the rooks. i see this doesn't quite work, but it's what i was looking at.|
|Feb-16-06|| ||GoldenKnight: <dzechiel> <The first five "Grandmasters" were awarded the title by Czar Nicholas II of Russia at St Petersburg in 1914. They were Emanual Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Tarrasch and Marshall.>|
True. I would also add that one was considered a Grandmaster if he won one or two International Tournaments. For this reason, Nimzowitsch in his own writings considered himself a Grandmaster. I'm sure Rubinstein was also considered a Grandmaster.
|Feb-16-06|| ||DP12: When solving tactics problems where you can't see the answer within 10 seconds(like me right here) you should always look for tactical features, like the two rooks lined up on the diagonal and blacks dark squared bishop in position to exploit this via d4. Then of course you think if I could only get the rook out of the way, I could win except for two problems 1) Is the king guards d4 2)there are various white checks that could be bothersome. If you get this far, you are nearly guaranteed to solve the problem. The theory is that one becomes more aware of these features during games as well, and I think that is right.|
|Feb-17-06|| ||Stonewaller2: One pre-FIDE book on my shelf defines Grandmaster as "a master with legitimate pretensions to the World Championship." That might not apply nowadays; not to denigrate the strength of FIDE-era GMs but merely to point out the superiority of the "best of the best."|
Since Tartakower's 500 Master Games contains four from Mir Sultan Khan (+2-1=1), and since two of these are against World Champions (a win vs. Capablanca and a draw vs. Alekine), I'd think we could safely admit one of my all-time favorite players (and Stonewall Attack exponent extraordinaire) into the ranks of historical Grandmasters.
|Feb-17-06|| ||dakgootje: <IM T. Taylor would be very displeased to see that you think he would be that old!! LOL.> *Coughs* yes i might just messed up the dates a little -.-|
Though they are both T. Taylor's and even though Timothy wont be happy about it...you cant call him a young fellow
|Jul-09-07|| ||sanyas: <Anyone who could beat Capablanca in a slow game is a GM PERIOD.>|
Anyone who could beat Capablanca in a fast game is a SuperGM, PERIOD.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·